Re: Artistic License 2.0

[Allison Randal <allison@perl.org>]

John Halton wrote:
> Out of interest, is there any reason why the developers of Parrot have
> adopted this licence rather than the GPL, given that the code (with
> trivial modifications) can be relicensed under the GPL anyway?

The usual variety of reasons. Partly historical. Partly for greater 
compatibility with the licenses of the languages we intend to run on 
Parrot (and packages written in those languages). Partly because of 
philosophical differences with a few (small) parts of GPLv3 that lead us 
to prefer a license that is compatible with all versions of the GPL and 
all "copyleft" licenses. Partly to allow proprietary versions under 
certain conditions.


From the discussion here, and references to an earlier thread, it 
sounds like there's general acceptance of the Artistic 2.0 as a free 
software license. We'll go ahead with the updated Parrot packages. Let 
us know if there are additional steps we should take before uploading 
packages under the new license.

I'll put in a wishlist request to base-files for the addition of 
"Artistic-2".

Thanks,
Allison